BABARI MASJID
Views of Shahabuddin
Letter to Indian Express, 31 July, 1996
Shri K.R. Manohara in his letter (A Monument to Harmony, 31 July, 1996) has suggested the construction of a multi-religious place of worship. This is an impracticable idea as the modes of worship vary. At best it can be a place for meditation.
Also, it would be unfair and antithetical to usurp and then to destroy a place of worship of any religion, to build a monument to multi-religion harmony!
The other solution-construction of a mosque and a temple on adjacent site. The Wakf land, adjacent to the Babari Masjid proper, had been offered to construction of a temple even in 1986, so long as the Masjid was restored, with the Ram Chabootra as the Sanctum Sanctorum. But this was rejected as on the specious plea that the Babari Masjid site itself was the birth site of Ram.
Raj Kamal Jha's article ("A four-year hangover", 17 July) focused on the strictly legal aspect. If a property in dispute is destroyed, first it must be rebuilt, whatever the final verdict. Moreover, Mr. Manohara has failed to appreciate that a forcible occupation (in December 1949) neither extinguishes nor creates title.
II- Letter to Indian Express, 12 August, 1996
Shri A.K. Sharma's letter (Indian Express, 9 August, 1996) is indeed a classic. He writes of 'divine facts' but without revealing the name of the Scripture, that Babar invaded Hindustan in 1526 and took Awadh in 1528 but he took both Delhi and Ayodhya from the Pathans and not from the Hindu Rajas. The structure in Ayodhya built under his command was and served as a mosque from 1528 to 22-23 December, 1949.
It is also a fact that 90-95% Muslim Indians are descendants of those who embraced Islam, But does it mean that like the mythical Ram Janambhoomi Mandir said to have been converted by Babar into Babari Masjid, they should all be converted back to Hinduism?
While Mr. Sharma condemns discrimination on the basis of creed or faith as a crime against humanity and against principle of equality, he upholds the demolition of a Masjid and its conversion, in broad day light, in the full blaze of history, into a Mandir! Is he living in two worlds-the Hindu world of tolerance and non-violence and the Hindutva world of intolerance and violence?
III- Letter to Hindustan Times, 12 Aug.,1996 Ref. the article "Ayodhya tangle" by S. Sahay (HT, July 24). I propose a fresh legislation for the take-over of the disputed site and the attached land. This is not called for as the Supreme Court has ruled that the State under the existing act of 1993 is no more than a custodian till is decided and revived the Special Bench If the title is decided in favor of the Muslim community the rule of law demands that the site be restored to them for reconstruction of the Masjid if they so wish. Similarly, if the title to the Babari Masjid site is finally decided in favor of the Hindu community the Muslim community will accept the judgement. The State committed to the rule of law as it should not exert undue pressure on either party to abdicate its legal right. Even if it cannot rebuild the Babari Masjid today as it should, it should guarantee that it shall execute the final judicial verdict whatever the political cost. What has hurt the Muslim psyche ever more than the demolition of the Masjid is the deliberate and unlawful construction of a makeshift temple with the State support on the debris of the demolished Masjid. Mr. Sahay is silent on it.
K.J. Alphons on Responsibility of Demolition
Who demolished the mosque at Ayodhya? Were they some isolated fundamentalist hoodlums? Hardly. They had the support of all the leaders and thinkers of the BJP, except Vajpayee. Did the BJP do it alone? Certainly not. I was with a powerful Union Minister on 6 December when the mosque was being demolished. When the hoodlums charged into the mosque, the minister rang up the Union home secretary and asked him why the central police force was not being sent in at least now when the demolition of the mosque was imminent. After all there was the Supreme Court order to ensure that the mosque was not demolished. The central police force was stationed just a ten-minute drive from the mosque. The home secretary told the minister categorically that he was powerless to do anything. The demolition of the mosque was pre-planned. The Intelligence Bureau had reported three days in advance to the Prime Minister that the mosque would be demolished. Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjit, general secretary of the CPM, had met the Prime Minister days before the incident and told him categorically that the mosque would be demolished and the PM should take appropriate action. The PM said he would.
The Prime Minister's Office put out the story that he was cheated by the BJP leadership. They had promised that the mosque would be spared. They betrayed him.
Extract from K.J. Alphons: Making a Difference
(Source: The Sunday, 7-13 April, 1996)
Prafull Goradia on Role of Kar Sevaks and Narasimha Rao
It is true that kar sevaks did cause the three domes of the edifice to be brought down between 2 pm and 4.30 pm on December 6, 1992, there is more to the story.
For the Hindutva forces, the collapse of the domes signified the end of the edifice. At 5.15 pm on the same evening, Mr. Kalyan Singh had resigned. By 6 pm the Central government had dismissed the Uttar Pradesh ministry and put the state under governor's rule. Over the following 60 hours or so, the walls and the plinth were broken and all the debris removed, evidently under Central government supervision.
Through all of December 7 and 8, no photograph was taken, and no picture of the Babari Masjid, with its walls standing but with the domes gone, appears to be available. The post-demolition photographs all show the flat ground on which the Masjid had stood as well as the small makeshift Ram temple built overnight.
This means that other than its domes, the Babari Masjid was demolished by a government agency under Central rule.
(Source: Letter in the Times of India)
